Shanzer, Baptism of Clovis

Dating the baptism of Clovis: the bishop of
Vienne vs the bishop of Tours

DA N U TA S H A N Z E R
This article re-examines the text and interpretation of three crucial

passages in Avitus of Vienne's Epistle ãå, the only contemporary document
attesting the baptism of Clovis, and one passage in Gregory of Tours'
Decem Libri Historiarum. The following conclusions relative to the date
and circumstances of the baptism can be drawn. ". Avitus addresses Clovis
not as if he was a pagan convert, but as if he was a recent Arian
sympathizer, possibly even a catechumen. á. There is no allusion to Clovis'
honorary consulship in Ep. ãå, hence no terminus post quem of äòð. â. The
populus adhuc nuper captivus cannot be the Alamanni or the newly-
converted Franks. Clovis' letter to the bishops of Aquitaine and Avitus'
known involvement in the ransoming of prisoners-of-war are adduced to
suggest that the populus may most plausibly be identi¢ed with Catholic
Gallo-Roman captives taken in the Franco-Visigothic war of äòæ. If this is
right, it provides a terminus post quem, of äòæ and suggests a baptism in
Christmas äòð. ã. Gregory of Tours' account of the Alamannic war is re-
examined, and the following conclusions reached: the account fuses a
`Clotilde-spool' and a `Constantinian-spool'; the battle against the
Alamanni must date to late äòå (evidence from Cassiodorus and
Ennodius); but Gregory himself did not know when it took place in
absolute terms, and his relative chronology may well be unreliable. Thus
the date of the battle and the date of conversion can be uncoupled. The
most probable terminus post quem remains the freeing of the populus
captivus, probably after the war of äòæ. The article ends by re-examining
the implications of Clovis' and Avitus' relationship and correspondence.
It seems appropriate to return to the baptism of Clovis, ùn ëvënement
qui fait ëpoque dans l'histoire du monde,'" in the year in which the
French chose to celebrate its ¢fteen hundredth anniversary (ãñå^"ññå).á
"
L. Levillain, `La conversion [et le bapteª me de Clovis]', Revue d'histoire de l'Eè glise de France
á" ("ñâä), pp. "å" ^ñá, at p. "å".
á
`XVe Centenaire du Bapteª me de Clovis'. An academic conference organized by Michel
Rouche in Reims on "ñ ^ áä September "ññå. There were other notable and highly-publicized
events as well, including a papal mass.
Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (") áñ ^ äæ # Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð, "òð Cowley Road, Oxford
OXã "JF, UK and âäò Main Street, Malden, MA òá"ãð, USA
30 Danuta Shanzer
The date of the baptism is controversial: those who follow the chron-
ology implied by Gregory of Tours place it in ãñå (or shortly thereafter);
those who favour other sources, such as Cassiodorus' Variae, place it
later, for example in äòå or äòð.â Clovis too has proved remarkably hard
to pin down. How pagan was he? How catholic? How romanized? How
barbarian? Two recent English articles address these problems. Spencer
surveyed the status quaestionis on the dating in this journal and
rea¤rmed the traditional solution.ã Daly carefully re-examined the texts
used to date and analyse Clovis' baptism to paint a revised picture of the
Frankish king, a Clovis for the "ññòs.ä
I come to Clovis' baptism from translating the Letters of Avitus of
Vienne. The much-discussed Epistle ãå is the only surviving contem-
porary evidence for the event, yet scholarly confusion about it is still rife
in the literature. Many who use it have not constituted a text, or
considered what criteria should be adduced to choose between variants.
Some have failed, for example, to distinguish manuscripts from editions.å
Some show random eclecticism in choosing readings,æ yet extreme
conservatism in textual reasoning, preferring invariably to bend interpre-
tations or translations to ¢t what they think the text ought to say, rather
than to admit that the text is either corrupt or demands some other
translation or interpretation. As an unfortunate result of a scienti¢cally
tidy way of thinking of problems as having `dossiers' that contain limited
numbers of documents related to a case, scholars fail to look beyond
their documents. To understand an individual letter written by Avitus,
one must read Avitus' other letters; to interpret a chancery letter of
Cassiodorus, one must study epistolary conventions.
Ìn the case of a key historical witness that has been investigated and
discussed for a long time, a new approach is hindered, not just by the
problems inherent in the text itself, but perhaps even more by the
accumulated weight of the scholarship on the subject, whose tradi-
tional approaches to problems and entrenched positions on contro-
versies develop a life of their own and a tendancy towards self-
justi¢cation. This is especially true of Avitus's letter to Clovis, for
â
F. Vogel, `Chlodwigs Sieg [Ïber die Alamannen und seine Taufe'], Historische Zeitschrift äå
("ððå), pp. âðä ^ãòâ; A. Van de Vyver, `La victoire [contre les Alamans aaet la conversion de
Clovis', I] R[evue] B[elge de] Ph[ilologie et d'] H[istoire] "ä ("ñâå), pp. ðäñ^ ñ"ã; Idem, `La
victoire [contre les Alamans et la conversion de Clovis' II], RBPhH "å ("ñâæ), pp. âä ^ñã; R.
Weiss, Chlodwigs Taufe[: Reims äòð], Geist und Werk der Zeiten áñ (Frankfurt, "ñæ"), and I.N.
Wood, `Gregory of Tours [and Clovis]', RBPhH åâ ("ñðä), pp. áãñ ^æá, on all of which see
Mark Spencer, `Dating the Baptism [of Clovis, "ððå^"ññâ]', Early Medieval Europe â ("ññã),
pp. ñæ ^ ""å, at pp. ññ ^ "ò".
ã
See above, n. â.
ä
William M. Daly, `Clovis[: How Barbaric, How Pagan?]', Speculum åñ ("ññã), pp. å"ñ ^ åã.
å
E.g. Spencer, `Dating the Baptism', p. "òñ, n. åã. For further examples see below, n. äñ.
æ
For more on this topic, see Staubach, below, n. äñ.
Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (") # Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð

Dating the baptism of Clovis 31
virtually every sentence in it has already been turned upside-down

and side-ways and made the basis for the most radically di¡erent
hypotheses.' ð
Staubach has an important point: the weight of the scholarship on
this problem threatens to compromise any discussion of the key primary
texts. Scholars who have worked on the date of the baptism have all too
often come to the texts with a point of view to defend, be it a late dating,
an early dating, a need to justify Gregory of Tours, a desire to expose
him, or simply the urge to agree or disagree with their predecessors.
Most who have worked on Clovis' baptism have been historians,
usually early medievalists, only occasionally later Romanists. As a philol-
ogist, I will interpret a series of di¡erent loci vexati in the key texts,
three from Avitus (Ep. ãå) and one from Gregory of Tours. I will
question the texts on four key problems in the baptism-controversy.
First, what was Clovis' religion prior to his baptism? Second, is there an
allusion to an honorary consulate held by Clovis in Ep. ãå? Third, who is
the populus captivus alluded to by Avitus in Ep. ãå? Fourth, how
accurate is Gregory's chronology, and did he know when Clovis' decisive
battle against the Alamanni took place? Critical reading of the texts in
question can indeed provide answers to these questions, or at any rate
de¢nitely exclude certain erroneous interpretations.
Avitus, Epistle ãå, page æä, lines á^ã

Vestrae subtilitatis acrimoniam quorumcumque scismatum sectatores
sententiis suis variis opinione, diversis multitudine, vacuis veritate
Christiani nominis visi sunt obumbratione velare.ñ
Sententiis suis is clearly modi¢ed by the parallel tricolon of adjectives,
variis, diversis and vacuis, all paired with limiting ablatives. Christiani
nominis must then be construed progressively with obumbratione velare
ð
N. Staubach, `Germanisches KÎnigtum und lateinische Literatur [vom fÏnften bis zum
siebten Jahrhundert]', FrÏhmittelalterliche Studien "æ ("ñðâ), pp. "^ äã, at p. áä: `Bei einem
historischen SchlÏsselzeugnis, das seit langem immer wieder untersucht und diskutiert
worden ist, wird ein neuer Zugang nicht nur durch die Probleme des Textes selbst, sondern
vielleicht stÌrker noch durch das Geweicht der Forschungsgeschichte behindert, deren tradi-
tionelle Fragestellungen und verfestigte Kontroverspositionen eine Eigendynamik und die
Tendenz zur VerselbstÌndigung entwickeln. Dies gilt in besonderem MaÞe auch fÏr den Brief
des Avitus an Chlodwig, bei dem nahezu jeder Satz bereits hin- und hergewendet und zur
Grundlage fÏr die verschiedensten Hypothesen gemacht worden ist.' (English translation
mine).
ñ
Alcimi Ecdici Aviti V iennensis episcopi Opera quae supersunt, ed. R. Peiper, Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Auctores antiquissimi [MGH, AA] (VI, á Munich, "ððâ), p. æä, lines á^ ã
(æä.á ^ ã). Subsequent references to the text of Avitus will use the page and line numbers of
Peiper's edition.
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (")

32 Danuta Shanzer
as the prose-rhythm suggests; "ò the phrase can only mean `to gloss over/
veil under the cover of the name ``Christian'' '. Some have construed
Christiani nominis retrogressively with veritate, as èmpty of the truth of
the Christian name'."" But such a phrase is not the equivalent of èmpty of
the truth of Christianity'. The very use of the nomen suggests a contrast
between the nomen and reality: the word has no function, unless it is
construed progressively. A good parallel for Avitus' use of this distinction
is to be found in one of his campaign letters addressed to Sigismund,
where he speaks of true Catholic Christians as quicumque veraciter
catholicorum nomen usurpant."á
Van de Vyver (taking Labbeus' nisi for visi) translates `des sectateurs
de toutes sortes de schismes ont essayë de voiler la subtile perspicacitë de
Clovis en se couvrant du nom chrëtien' (my italics "â). But in what sense
can the schismatics have `veiled' Clovis' perspicacity? Does Van de Vyver
mean `put a veil on his perspicacity, so that Clovis cannot see'? Velare
means `to cover, veil, cover up, conceal', so that something not be seen,
not `to fool', `to blind',"ã ùmnebeln',"ä `zu benebeln',"å `voiler et obscurcir',"æ
or `to bamboozle', so that someone not see."ð If the schismatics are veiling
Clovis, whence has Van de Vyver introduced `se couvrant?' Vestrae subtili-
tatis acrimoniam (= Clovis) cannot serve as a direct object for velare.
The text is unsound, and all who have translated the passage have been
driven to distort both the meaning of velare and the function of the
phrase sub obumbratione Christiani nominis."ñ One can compare Avitus,
Ep. "ä (pp. ã^ä) to see his use of velo as equivalent to tego: si in eo
inertiae meae noxam velaret ac tegeret magnitudo.
Instead the sentence requires an object that is a pejorative word for
"ò
Peiper has mispunctuated. There should be a comma after veritate. Vacuis veritate is a
regular cursus velox (ppãp), whereas Christiani nominis (pâpp) is not a standard type.
""
Wood, `Gregory of Tours', p. áåæ construes Christiani nominis with veritate.
"á
Ep. ñá, ññ."ð ^"ñ.
"â
"ñâå, p. ñòâ. A very similar translation is provided by Levillain, `La conversion', p. "ææ: `Les
sectateurs de certains schismes, par leurs doctrines discordantes, aussi diverses que
nombreuses, vides de vëritë, ont voilë la perspicacitë de votre subtil esprit en se couvrant du
titre de chrëtien.'
"ã
E.g. Wood (Gregory of Tours), p. áåæ.
"ä
Staubach, `Germanisches KÎnigtum und lateinische Literatur', p. âã: `den scharfen Verstand
des Herrschers mit den widersprÏchlichen und unwahren Lehren ihres Scheinchristentums
zu umnebeln versucht hÌtten.'
"å
A. Angenendt, Kaiserherrschaft und KÎnigstaufe (Berlin, "ñðã), p. "æ": Èuren scharfen Geist
haben die AnhÌnger von allerlei Sekten mit ihren verschieden gerichteten, vielfÌltigen, aller
Wahrheit baren Lehrmeinungen als dunkle Christen zu benebeln gesucht.'
"æ
M. Rouche, Clovis (Paris, "ññå), p. âñå.
"ð
E.g. virgins were veiled, not so that they could not see, but so that no one could see them.
"ñ
For example, W. Von den Steinen, `Chlodwigs [Ûbergang zum Christentum, Eine quellenkri-
tische Studie]', Mitteilungen des Ústerreichischen Instituts fÏr Geschichtsforschung "á, Erg.-
Band ("ñâá), pp. ã"æ ^ äò", at p. ãðò: `die Ketzer werfen einen Schatten auf den Namen
``Christ'' '.

unorthodoxy, such as haeresim, or else a more neutral word, quali¢ed

by an unfavourable adjective: the schismatics gloss over their heresy or
unorthodoxy or their evil doctrine by calling it Christianity, that is they
put a covering over it, and call that covering `Christianity'. Vestrae subtili-
tatis acrimoniam is an acceptable honori¢c for Clovis. Acrimonia can be
used for acumen (Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (TLL) s.v. àcrimonia' ãâá."^
"æ), and Avitus would have known this usage from Sidonius, Epistle ð.å.å.
He used the same phrase in a theological letter to Gundobad.áò
So what to do with the text? One might have tried to ¢t in subtilitatis
vestrae acrimoniam as an indirect object, that is the schismatics tried to
veil their heresy from Clovis' keen sense.á" But velare is not construed
with a dative or with a + ablative: it would require ne + purpose clause.
The most economical solution is to posit a lacuna, and to supply, exempli
gratia, the missing object of velare. Acrimoniam may have originally
been acrimonia, an ablative of agent originally construed with a (now
lost) perfect participle passive. Acrimoniam is a medieval correction,
intended to supply the missing object.
Avitus uses a variety of words to allude to heretical opinions. Some,
such as haeresis áá or schisma are fairly neutral in tone. Others are
metaphorical, and highly pejorative, for example pernicies,áâ furor,áã
contagium,áä venenum.áå Which to choose? The heretofore mysterious
(and perhaps pejorative) ista at p. æä, line â (dum ista nos aeternitati
committimus) suggest that whatever is missing was a neutral plural noun.
It is worth attempting a purely diagnostic conjecture.áæ
Later on in the same letter Avitus alludes to Arianism (æå."ò) as
pravorum dogmatum germina.áð Perhaps the fairly neutral dogmata stood
here? Avitus used dogma and sectatores very close to one another
elsewhere.áñ One might supply detecta (ùncovered') to match the
áò
Ep. âò, åò.á" acrimoniae vestrae, å".âä acrimonia vestra. (References to TLL come from
Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Leipzig, "ñòä^ ). For Sidonius, see Gai Solii Apollinaris Sidonii
Epistulae et Carmina, ed. Chr. Luetjohann, MGH, AA VIII (Munich "ððæ).)
á"
Celo, for example, can take a double accusative.
áá
Avitus of Vienne, Contra Eutychen et Nestorium [CE], in Alcimi Ecdici Aviti Opera quae
supersunt, ed. R. Peiper, MGh, AA VI, á (Munich, "ððâ), "."å."ñ.
áâ
CE "."å.ä and "å.
áã
CE "."ä."á.
áä
CE "."å.â and "æ.
áå
CE "."å."á.
áæ
A diagnostic conjecture does not pretend to be an exact restoration of the author's text.
Instead it is an editorial solution, where the editor knows what thought was intended, or
what sort of words might have been used, but cannot, with complete certainty, swear that the
restoration is exact.
áð
He also refers to the dogmata tenebrarum in Ep. ð, ãò.", another text that describes
conversion. For more seeds of heresy, see CE "."å."æ^"ð.
áñ
CE á.áñ."ä^ "æ Ad cuius pristinum dogma denotandum vel corrigendum aliquantisper, sicut
optandum est, sectatores pauca haec suscepisse su¤ciat.

34 Danuta Shanzer
metaphor of velare and to justify the presence of acrimoniam which may

once have been an ablative of agent ùncovered by your keen subtlety'.âò
But ùncovered dogmas' is not quite right. Avitus clearly needed a word
that put a somewhat negative `spin' on dogmata. One could try adding
mendacia,â" but the prose rhythm is awkward,âá so detecta mendacia
without dogmata seems a better diagnostic conjecture.
Vestrae subtilitatis acrimonia 5detecta mendacia4 quorumcumque
scismatum sectatores sententiis suis variis opinione, diversis
multitudine, vacuis veritate, Christiani nominis nisi ââ sunt
obumbratione velare.
From this text as conjecturally restored it is clear that there had been a
concerted attempt by heretical Christians to convert Clovis from
paganism. Who were these heretics? Van de Vyver suggests that Avitus
uses the deliberately vague quorumcumque in order to avoid hurting
Gundobad's feelings,âã but that these were Arians nonetheless.âä While
the existence of other types of unorthodox Christians is attested in Gaul
in this period,âå Arians remain the obvious ones to have evangelized
Clovis, and their in£uence can be detected in the religious beliefs of his
sisters, Audo£eda and Lentichildis.âæ Furthermore, at the end of the
letter when Avitus turns to pagan barbarians who have as yet been uncor-
rupted by heresy, even though he again uses a vague phrase pravorum
dogmatum germina, Arianism is the only heresy he could have
intended.
âò
Detecta was chosen to match the metaphor velare. Note that Avitus uses this word of
Eutyches, when his heresy was unmasked. See Avitus, ed. Peiper, "å."ä Discussus, detectus,
atque damnatus est.
â"
Either fallacia or mendacia would produce a regular cursus tardus. Another less likely possi-
bility might be perversa.
âá
Vestrae subtilitätis acrimönia (tardus) 5detëcta mendäcia (tardus) dögmata4 quorum-
cumque scismatum sectatores sententiis suis variis opinione, diversis multitudine, vacuis
veritate, Christiani nominis nisi sunt obumbratione velare. If one reads detëcta mendäcia
(tardus) dögmata, there is a con£ict between prose-rhythm and sense. Detecta mendacia
forms a tardus that would indicate a sense-unit, but mendacia dogmata likewise forms a
tardus.
ââ
Taking Labbeus' palmary conjecture for visi codd.
âã
As will be clear from my discussion below, it is unlikely that this letter envisages
Gundobad as a `secondary audience'. Van de Vyver has made an important and correct obser-
vation, but the vague terms are intended to mollify Clovis. See below pp. âå^âæ.
âä
Van de Vyver, `La victoire' I ("ñâå), p. ñò" `Pour mieux faire ressortir combien le choix de
Clovis est mëritoire et dëcisif et sans viser trop directement l'hërësie arienne, le prëlat
multiplie sans prëciser (quorumcumque) le nombre des sectes et des doctrines que le converti
aurait eu a© ëcarter.'
âå
Cf. Ep. â" that mentions Bonosiaci among Arians and Catholics. Ep. áå mentions a Donatist.
See Van de Vyver, `La victoire' I ("ñâå), p. ñò" for semi-pelagianism and Eutychianism, and Von
den Steinen, `Chlodwigs', p. ãðå, who leaves the question open.
âæ
See Gregorii Episcopi Turonensis Decem libri historiarum [DLH], ed. B. Krusch and W.
Levison, MGH, Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum I." (Hanover, "ñä"), á.â" and Avitus, ed.
Peiper, p. "äá.

Avitus' other letters must be introduced as a control group, to show

us whether he is prepared to call an Arian an Arian to his face, or not,
and to document the language he uses about heresy. Once his usage is
established, it may be possible to make a more precise argument about
Clovis's state of belief and religious status on the basis of Avitus' diction
and rhetoric.âð
The bishop of Vienne could judge his audience. The language of the
fragmentary Contra Arianos, because it is addressed to Gundobad, is
very restrained, despite Avitus' claim that the king had enjoined libertas
upon him.âñ In a few places Avitus allows himself allusions to ineptia
and to versutiae,ãò but makes it clear that the culprits, both imperiti and
callidi, are Gundobad's bishops. ã" In the Contra Eutychen, however, the
technique is very di¡erent. Because the heresy under ¢re is not one
shared by his addressee, Avitus freely employs a full battery of pejorative
expressions for the beliefs of Eutyches. ãá Avitus uses language charged
with contempt and disgust, when writing to his su¡ragan, Victorius of
Grenoble, about the re-use of basilicas that had been taken over by
Arians,ãâ and when writing to the pope he speaks of the stain of Arian
heresy by name.ãã
Even the letters to the converted Sigismund do not mince words
about Arianism. In Ep. áâ Avitus makes a triple pun about Gundobad's
bishops: sacerdotibus, immo magis seductoribus, et, ut adhuc verius
dicamus, sectatoribus suis, se velle proponere. (The same bishops are
politely referred to as sacerdotes vestri when Avitus addresses
Gundobad!) ãä Ep. â" warns of further dangers from heretics: a council
with Arian bishops as an annuum quoddam contagium. ãå A follower of
Bonosus is like a plague called up from the nethermost regions of hell. ãæ
The word Arrianus is used openly as well as haeresis and schisma.ãð But
nonetheless Avitus' language is notably less graphic than it is in either Ep.
âð
For parallel argumentation, in this case arguing, on the basis of Sidonius' silence about
Arianism, for Catholicism as the perceived religion of many Burgundians, see J. Harries,
Sidonius Apollinaris [and the Fall of Rome, ãòæ ^ãðä] (Oxford, "ññã), p. áâá.
âñ
Avitus of Vienne, Contra Arianos in Alcimi Ecdici Aviti Opera quae supersunt [CA], ed. R.
Peiper, MGH, AA VI, á (Munich, "ððâ), "ã.âæ.
ãò
CA "ã.ñ quanta ineptia; CA "ä.á ne tolerando imperitorum versutias et ineptias callidorum
suspendamini a professione cum iamdudum in confessione teneamini.
ã"
CA "ã.âð^ "ä.á
ãá
See the examples above, nn. áá^ å.
ãâ
Avitus, ed. Peiper, Ep. æ, âå.ä: aperta perversitate pereunt; Ibid., âð.æ: morticinum dogmatis
alieni; Ibid., âð."": saeviunt, quidem, cum possunt, foedis unguibus alienarum aedium perva-
sores.
ãã
Avitus, ed. Peiper, Ep. ð, ãò.â^ ã: haeresis Arriana maculaverat.
ãä
CA "â."æ and "ã.âð.
ãå
Avitus, ed. Peiper, Ep. â", åá.ñ: the phrase is an implicit pun on concilium.
ãæ
Ibid., åá."å.
ãð
Ibid., åá."æ; åá.áò; åá.á" ^á.

36 Danuta Shanzer
æ, or in the Contra Eutychen, where his correspondents are clearly of

the same theological party as he is.
The language of the letter to Clovis emerges from these comparisons
as highly guarded.ãñ Avitus does not specify which heresy precisely is at
issue. While he indulges in a slightly mean word (sectatores) äò to describe
his rivals, he deliberately draws a line between their obfuscations and
Clovis' acrimonia. The second sentence comes as a surprise to anyone
who knows Avitus' views on Arianism: dum ista nos aeternitati commit-
timus, dum, quid recti unusquisque sentiat, futuro examini reservamus
etiam in praesentibus interlucens radius veritatis emicuit. Here the
bishop of Vienne seems prepared simply to let these matters go till the
Last Judgement,ä" and be content with the light that has shone forth
because of Clovis' choice. To put it crudely, it almost sounds as if a coin
had been tossed, and, surprisingly, things turned out right. Avitus is
magnanimous and pleased, but, above all, eager to forget the immediate
past. All of these factors (no explicit mention of Arianism, the lack of
openly pejorative vocabulary, the suggestion that such matters are best
left to Higher Authorities in the future) suggest that he is addressing
someone who has recently been seriously involved with the doctrine in
question. Clovis is treated in much the same way as Gundobad, but in an
even more gingerly fashion.
In concluding, I should like to draw attention to a telling phrase at
the end of the same letter. Avitus refers to the Franks as Clovis' gens, and
suggests that he should evangelize other gentes beyond his borders who
are still in their state of native ignorance (i.e. `poor benighted 'eathen'),
and have not been corrupted by Arianism.äá He then refers to these
foreign gentes as externi quique populi paganorum. Avitus has no
compunctions about using populi paganorum at the end of the letter to
someone whom we know to have been a paganus himself.äâ What are we
to make of this?
It is signi¢cant that the only other place in his writings where Avitus
uses paganus is in Homilia áò, delivered on the occasion of the conse-
cration of a church on the site of a destroyed pagan temple: si paganus hic
forte iam deeest, qui plures deos velit excoli, gemit haereticus qui unum
conspicit exorari.äã The clear force of the passage is that even though now
perhaps there is no pagan to worship many gods present, at least the
heretic will be unhappy who sees one God being prayed to. This sermon
ãñ
Pace Von den Steinen `Chlodwigs', pp. ãðä^ å.
äò
See above, n. ãä.
ä"
Clearly the force of aeternitas and futurum examen in contrast to in praesentibus.
äá
Avitus, ed. Peiper, æå.ñ.
äâ
Cf. Gregory's description of Clovis at DLH, á.áæ adhuc fanaticis erroribus involutus.
äã
Avitus, ed. Peiper, Hom. áò, "âã.ñ.

uses the impolite paganus, because none is present. Avitus would not
have spoken of populi paganorum to Clovis, had he thought of Clovis
himself as a recent or current member of that group. He is a canny contem-
porary writer who knows the formulae for civil epistolary intercourse, for
example, when and whom to call a barbarian a barbarus or a natio a natio.ää
He has no need to pussyfoot around paganism, because he does not think of
Clovis as a pagan. Instead he expends his linguistic e¡orts to be politically
correct on the terminology related to heresy, for, in his eyes, Clovis was an
all-too-recent heretic. These observations support Wood's suggestion that
Clovis went through an intermediate stage as an Arian catechumen.äå They
directly contradict the silence of Gregory of Tours.
When we compare a documentary source, addressed to Clovis, some
extremely important information emerges. Avitus is to be trusted,
because he is clearly not eager to draw too much attention to Clovis'
heretical £irtations. Yet what he says supports something in the margins
of Gregory's account: Lentichildis needed to be reconverted to Catho-
licism. We know that Avitus himself gave a sermon (now lost) on the
occasion of her conversion.äæ All of this suggests that Gregory here, as
elsewhere,äð is deliberately suppressing facts.
Avitus, Epistle ãå, page æå, lines "å^"æ

Gaudeat equidem Graecia principem legisse nostrum: sed non iam quae
tanti muneris dono sola mereatur.
Many have tried to use this sentence to date Ep. ãå. Most of the
previous historical discussions have been based on false apprehensions,
¢rst about the text, and second about its interpretation.äñ It is thus
crucial to begin with the manuscript-readings.
ää
Ep. ð to the pope tellingly shows both these words used without inhibitions. For more on
paganus, see J. Zeiller, Paganus: Eè tude de terminologie historique (Paris^ Freiburg, "ñ"æ), and
TLL s.v. `paganus' ð".â ^ ðã."á. The word is never used as a self-description.
äå
Wood `Gregory of Tours', pp. áåå ^ æ. This is not, however, to suggest that he underwent
Arian baptism.
äæ
See Avitus, ed. Peiper, Homilia â", "äá.áâ: de conversione Lenteildis Chlodovaei sororis.
äð
E.g. his complete suppression of the Franco-Burgundian alliance in the war of äòæ ^ ð.
äñ
Various scholars have di¤culties with the apparatus criticus. J.N. Hillgarth, Christianity
and Paganism, âäò^ æäò (Philadelphia, "ñåñ), pp. æå^ ð translates, `Let Greece indeed rejoice it
has elected an emperor who shares our faith; it is no longer alone in deserving such a favor.'
He seems to be taking the reading of S, se principem habere legis nostrae. But habere cannot
possibly mean èlected', and emperors were not èlected' in the modern sense of the word. This
aspect of his translation seems to re£ect legisse. For completely justi¢ed and apposite
criticism of this sort of textual critical double-think, see Staubach, `Germanisches KÎnigtum
und lateinische Literatur', p. áò. Bruno Krusch, `Die erste deutsche KaiserkrÎnung in Tours
Weihnachten äòð', Sitzungsberichte der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin
("ñââ), pp. "òåò^ å, at p. "òåâ also has a pecular composite text: `Gaudeat equidem Graecia
habere se principem (= Kaiser) legis nostrae (so ist zu emendieren), sed non iam, quae tanti
muneris dono sola mereatur.'

38 Danuta Shanzer
L and S o¡er di¡erent readings of the passage. L is a manuscript

(Lyon, Bibliothe© que de la Ville, no. äâä, s xi/xii). S is more di¤cult to
interpret: the siglum represents Sirmond's editio princeps of "åãâ, a text
based on a manuscript that has been lost. Early editors did not, however,
regularly distinguish between the readings of their manuscripts and their
own conjectures.åò Thus, although a manuscript lies behind S, it cannot
be treated as if it were one. Indeed many of its readings are likely to be
Sirmond's improvements.å"
The relationship between the lost manuscript used by Sirmond and L
cannot always be established, unless a third manuscript is available. In a
few cases, where a letter present both in L and S has been transmitted by
a third source, one can see some light. For example a comparison of the
text of Ep. æ in Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, lat. äæã (P) seems
to suggest that S and Palatinus share a hyparchetype that is independent
of L.åá But then again, there is the di¤culty of a passage found only in
P.åâ In many cases, the readings of S seem to be emendations and
lectiones faciliores. But this is not true of all of its readings.
The manuscript behind S represented genuinely independent
testimony,åã for there are places where ¢rstly, it had correct readings
that could not be Sirmond's own conjectures, secondly, it correctly ¢lled
lacunae that could not have been ¢lled using conjectural emendation,åä
lastly, it showed independent lacunae, not found in L.åå
What must the editor's strategy be? The safest method is to examine
the text of L ¢rst, and see whether it is sound. It should be given every
chance. If it is not sound, then one should turn to S, try to evaluate
whether S's reading is Sirmond's conjecture (which could be very good
indeed) or a genuine reading.åæ
Lyon, Bibliothe© que de la Ville, no. äâä

L reads Gaudeat equidem Graecia principem legisse nostrum, sed non
iam quae tanti muneris donum sola mereatur: Às far as I am concerned,
let Greece åð rejoice in having chosen our ruler.' Principem legisse
åò
Avitus, ed. Peiper, pp. v ^ vi for Sirmond's practice.
å"
Ibid., pp. v, xii and xiv.
åá
Ibid., p. xiv.
åâ
Ibid., âñ."ã; See Peiper, Ibid., p. xvi, who does not o¡er an explanation. He seems to be
suggesting independent omission both by L and S.
åã
That is, Sirmond's manuscript was not merely a copy of L.
åä
In at least one place (Avitus, ed. Peiper, Ep. æã, ñ"."ä ^ "æ) S has text that cannot be a conjec-
tural supplement.
åå
The Sirmond manuscript, for example, did not have the text of Epp. å, äò, äð and åã. It
misses an important phrase in L at Ep. ãå, æä.áæ: qua competentem vos pro¢tebamini.
åæ
Essentially Peiper's position (Avitus, ed. Peiper, p. xvi). I would agree that he often goes
overboard in trying to justify L's readings.
åð
That is, Byzantium.

nostrum has caused many problems. Who is the princeps? What does
the phrase mean? Avitus' use of princeps is not a decisive factor: four
times he uses it to refer to the eastern emperor,åñ but he also uses it of
barbarian kings.æò There are basically three types of historical interpreta-
tions.
First, it has been interpreted as a reference to the events described in
Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum (DLMH) á.âð (Igitur ab
Anastasio imperatore codecillos de consolato accepit et in basilica beati
Martini tunica blattea indutus et clamide inponens vertice diadema . . . et
ab ea die tamquam consul aut augustus vocitatus).æ" But Avitus clearly
cannot allude to a consulship, ordinary or honorary ^ the proper word
would have been designare or decorare insignibus ^ and we have the
contemporary formula for appointment preserved in Cassiodorus, Variae
å.". While Avitus does not refer to consuls in any of his own writings,æá
we may assume that he would have known the proper vocabulary from
the writings of Sidonius,æâ if not from elsewhere. Even though someone
like Gregory of Tours confuses o¤ces and their terminology, so that a
certain vagueness obscures what actually happened,æã Avitus cannot be
expected to write in a similar fashion.æä If he thought that Clovis had
been made consul, he might have expressed it this way: Gaudeat
equidem Graecia se principem nostrum consulem designare/designasse or
Gaudeat equidem Graecia se principem nostrum consularibus insignibus
decorasse. Principem legisse nostrum would have been insu¤cient as an
allusion to the consulship described by Gregory.
Second, others see here a less speci¢c allusion to Clovis. Weiss, for
example, translates the passage: `Griechenland soll sich freuen, dass unser
FÏrst (Chlodwig) (sc. Katholizismus) gewÌhlt hat.'æå But, if Clovis had
been intended, it is highly unlikely that Avitus would have called him
princeps noster ^ even at a time, such as äòæ^ð, when the Franks and
Burgundians were allied against the Visigoths, or äò"^á when the
åñ
Avitus, ed. Peiper, áá.áâ; áá.áä; ãâ.å; "òò.â.
æò
Ibid., âã.áä; âå.""; âñ."ã; "ãå.áå.
æ"
Vogel, `Chlodwigs sieg, pp. âñð ^ñ and Wood, `Gregory of Tours', p. áåñ. For a discussion of
Clovis' consulate, see J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-Haired Kings and other Studies in
Frankish History (London, "ñåá), pp. "æä ^å.
æá
The following allusions are all in other people's writings: Avitus, ed. Peiper, åâ.áá (Vignier
fake); æò."" (date of receipt in the papal chancery); æá.áå (date noted by the papal chancery).
æâ
Sidonius, Ep. ð.å, p. "â".â ¡. clearly shows that he knew the `drill' about consuls and consul-
ships. Consuls show up constantly in his writings; cf. the index to the MGH edition, p. ãäæ
for a list.
æã
See M. McCormick, `Clovis at Tours, Byzantine Public Ritual and the Origins of Medieval
Ruler Symbolism', in E.K. Chrysos and A. Schwarz (eds) Das Reich und die Barbaren (Wien-
KÎln, "ñðñ), pp. "ää ^ ðò, at pp. "äñ ^ åò. While Gallo-Romans would certainly have known the
di¡erence between a real and an honorary consulate, Gregory might well not have known
what precisely a consulate was, or how it was described.
æä
That is, consul and Augustus.
æå
R. Weiss, Chlodwigs Taufe, p. ãñ. The choice for him is Catholicism, according to Weiss.

40 Danuta Shanzer
Burgundians were the Franks' tributaries. The expression would have

been treasonable, and there is reason to believe that Avitus was aware of
the dangers of incautious remarks in correspondence. See Ep âå, åå.ð
actionem verbo potius referendam portitoris auribus allegavi; and the
extreme and intentional vagueness of his letters to his cousin Apollinaris
that would have had to reach him in Visigothic territory.ææ There were
always the cautionary tales of Aprunculus of Langres and of Caesarius of
Arles.æð Van de Vyver is wrong to insist that this letter was written with
Gundobad as the indirect audience.æñ
Third, others have seen here an allusion to Anastasius. Reydellet (p.
""") suggests the following: `Le prince qu'a choisi la Gre© ce est quali¢ë de
noster, c'est-a© -dire qu'il partage notre foi, a© nous ëveª ques catholiques
d'Occident.' Principem nostrum allegedly means àn orthodox emperor.' ðò
Impossible. Noster serves to distinguish whatever is characterized as
`noster' from what belongs to someone else. The sphere of the separation,
however, is always de¢ned by the context, and is often not stated expli-
citly ^ hence the di¤culties with this passage. The immediate context in
no way suggests that nostrum could or should mean òrthodox'.ð" So one
must return to the unmarked meaning of nostrum, òurs', that is,
`belonging to us' (Avitus), in the most basic sense. In that case, whatever
nostrum means is clearly opposed to what Graecia means.ðá Although
Avitus uses noster of the eastern emperor in Ep. ñâ, "òò.â (gloriosissimo
principi nostro), the letter was written in Sigismund's name, and, since
the king is ¢shing for the title of Magister Militum from Anastasius, he
is doing everything to emphasize that he is working for the emperor
("òò."â per nos administratis), and that he is his ruler. Here there is no
such context.
ææ
Epp. áã, âå, ä", and äá. Ep. ðæ to Apollinaris of Valence also begins with some extended caginess.
æð
Gregory, DLH, á.áâ. Caesarius was exiled to Bordeaux when suspected of treasonous
relations with Gundobad, see V ita Caes. Arel. "å ^"ð and á" ¡. for the suspicion he came
under during the siege of Arles.
æñ
`La victoire' I ("ñâå), pp. ñòò ^ ", ñòð, ñ"" and ñ"â. Followed by J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, The
Long-Haired Kings, p. "æ". L. Schmidt, Die Ostgermanen (Munich, "ñåñ), p. "ãñ took the same
line, but was aware of the political dangers such correspondence would have involved.
ðò
Staubach, `Germanisches KÎnigtum und lateinische Literatur', p. áò seems to suggest that
M. Reydellet, La Royautë [dans la littërature latine de Sidoine Apollinaire a© Isidore de
Sëville] (Rome, "ñð") has combined legisse nostrum and legis nostrae. This is not clear, for
although Reydellet (p. """, n. ñá) cites Courcelle's translation `qui partage notre foi', he cites
the text of L (at p. "òñ, n. ðå), not a composite text like those of the scholars above. See above,
n. äñ. It seems instead that he is packing too much meaning into nostrum. Von den Steinen,
`Chlodwigs', p. ãæñ and Staubach both overstate the case in assuming that legis nostrae is an
emendation of Sirmond's. It could well be a transmitted correct reding. Reydellet has now
been followed by Spencer, `Dating the Baptism', p. "òñ.
ð"
Contrast Avitus, ed. Peiper, æä.æ: vestra ¢des nostra victoria est, where nostra clearly means
`Catholic'.
ðá
It would most probably refer to someone who was òurs' in that he was western as opposed
to eastern, or òurs' in that he was Burgundian as opposed to something else, or else that he
was òur princeps' as opposed to someone else's.

As a ¢nal nail in L's co¤n I would cite the following vaguer, but not
insigni¢cant objections. L's text principem legisse nostrum simply does
not mean much in itself. It is insu¤ciently transparent. Chosen our ruler
for what? The purpose of the choosing or else the object of choice must
be deducible from the context, or explicitly stated.ðâ It is not. This
objection applies both to the suggested translation in which principem is
taken as the subject of the accusative-in¢nitive construction,ðã and to the
one in which principem is taken as the object of legisse. In addition, the
tone is somewhat problematically dismissive, given the jussive
subjunctive and the presence of equidem.ðä Even the construction with
gaudere is slightly unusual. In his verse, presumably for reasons of
brevity, Avitus prefers gaudere + in¢nitive.ðå But in most places in his
prose he uses the construction gaudere + accusative-in¢nitive.ðæ All of
this adds up to strong prima facie evidence that L's reading is incorrect.
The impression is further con¢rmed by the lack of concinnity
between the ¢rst and second clauses. L reads sed non iam quae tanti
muneris donum sola mereatur. This clearly must mean,`but she is no longer
the one to deserve so great a gift alone'. The sentence clearly implies that
the east has had this gift up till now, but that now someone else other than
the east (the west) has it. But if the east chose a princeps, in what sense
does the west choose a princeps now too? And in what sense is the act of
choosing a donum? Usually a donum is something that is accorded one.ðð
Sirmond's editio princeps

Gaudeat ergo quidem Graecia habere se principem legis nostrae, sed
non iam quae tanti muneris dono sola mereatur illustrari.
`Therefore let Greece, to be sure, rejoice that she has a ruler who is
orthodox,'ðñ but she is no longer the only one to deserve to bask in the
illumination of such a great gift.'
ðâ
For the normal construction, see Avitus, ed. Peiper, Ep. ñã, "ò"."ä non me quidem legistis
o¤cii mei compotem. Vogel, `Chlodwigs Sieg', p. âññ was rightly uneasy about this
construction, saying that one had to supply consulem. He seems not to have been suggesting
an emendation, but a mental addition, because as a parallel he cites Ennodius, Panegyricus,
ed. Fr. Vogel, MGH, AA VII (Berlin, "ððä), ã."å, p. áòä."å lector (= is qui consules creat). In that
passage, however, there is an earlier and explicit allusion to the consulship, so that the
context is transparent. This is not the case in Avitus.
ðã
See Weiss above, n. æå.
ðä
Equidem draws attention to the speaker's contrasting point of view, often in rhetorical
contexts, and usually accompanying a ¢rst-person verb. I know of no other example of the
word in Avitus' writings.
ðå
H. Goelzer, Le Latin de Saint Avit (Paris, "ñòñ), p. áâð. Four examples from the verse. One
at "òò.âò, and this passage.
ðæ
Goelzer, Le Latin de Saint Avit, p. áãñ with numerous examples.
ðð
This objection can be raised to Weiss' translation, see above p. âñ.
ðñ
For lex nostra in this sense, see Avitus, ed. Peiper, Ep. ð, ãò."ä. For Arianism as the lex
aliena, see ibid., Ep. âð, åæ.ð clericos legis alienae.

42 Danuta Shanzer
The sequence of thought in the ¢rst two clauses is de¢nitely better, if

one takes S's reading. The rather rude equidem vanishes. Quidem serves
to introduce the contrast in sed non iam. The donum is clearly a gift ^
the possession of a Catholic emperor.ñò The princeps in question is
Anastasius,ñ" and the point of the sentence, as be¢ts the content of the
letter, is that the west can now rejoice that it too has a Catholic princeps.
The orthodox brightness of the east now illumines the west, and at
Clovis' Christmas baptism a western version of the Star of Bethlehem
has risen to summon the gentiles to worship.ñá It is worth emphasizing at
this stage that, once one has rejected L's meaningless principem legisse
nostrum, one cannot try to extract an allusion to the accession of
Anastasius in ãñ" from Sirmond's text.ñâ If Avitus had wanted to say that
Graecia had just acquired its orthodox emperor, he would have had to
have written: Gaudeat ergo quidem Graecia se 5nunc4 habere
principem legis nostrae. There is no evidence that he did, and habere se
implies no more than that the east currently has an orthodox emperor.
The text of L should be rejected. While it is impossible to tell how
much of S is Sirmond and how much his manuscript, its text makes
sense, and can reasonably be given the bene¢t of the doubt.
Avitus, Epistle ãå, page æå, lines â^ð

Vellem vero praeconiis vestris quiddam exhorationis adnectere, si
aliquid vel scientiam vestram vel observantiam praeteriret. Numquid
¢dem perfecto praedicabimus, quam ante perfectione sine praedicatore
vidistis? an forte humilitatem, quam iam dudum nobis devotione
impenditis, quam nunc primam professione debetis? An miseri-
cordiam, quam solutus a vobis adhuc nuper populus captivus gaudiis
mundo insinuat, lacrimis deo [my italics]?
Ì would have liked to add some exhortation to my praise of you,
had anything escaped either your knowledge or your watchfulness.
Certainly I am not going to preach the faith that you saw without a
preacherñã before your baptism to you once you have found it? Or
should I preach humility perhaps? You had long ago paid it to me by
ñò
The di¡erences between L's and S's text in the ¢nal clause do not matter: the important
words, mereor and donum are common to both.
ñ"
Avitus was unaware of Anastasius' pro-Monophysite sympathies until ä"". See Wood,
`Gregory of Tours', p. áåñ, esp. n. "äã.
ñá
On this topic, see the excellent treatment in Staubach, `Germanisches KÎnigtum und latei-
nische Literatur', p. áå ^ ð.
ñâ
Reydellet, `La Royautë', pp. ñå ^ æ followed by Spencer, `Dating the Baptism', p. "òñ.
ñã
The allusion is to Romans X."ã^ "ä. Clovis surprisingly has done it on his own. Levillain,
`La conversion', p. "æâ wrongly takes ¢dem as miraculum.

your service, even though only now do you owe it to me through

your profession of faith. Or perhaps I should preach pity that a people
up till recently captive, once released by you, by its joy conveys to the
world and by its tears to God?'
This passage could provide a terminus post quem for Clovis' baptism,
and there have been many di¡erent historical interpretations of the
reference to a populus captivus. Some have seen it as an allusion to
Clovis' mercy to the conquered Alamanni (Cassiodorus Variae á.ã").ñä
Others following G. Reverdy took the populus captivus to be Clovis's
own Franks.ñå Levillain rather improbably took it to refer to the
Frankish soldiers baptized with Clovis.ñæ Others,ñð most recently
including Wood, saw the populus captivus as the Gallo-Romans of
Aquitaine, liberated from Visigothic rule in äòæ^ð.ññ
The ¢rst two interpretations are demonstrably wrong. Reverdy had
already pointed out two of the de¢ciencies of Kurth's translation,
`Parlerai-je de votre misëricorde, glori¢ëe devant Dieu et devant les
hommes par la joie et par les larmes d'un peuple vaincu dont vous avez
daignë dëfaire les cha|ª nes:' "òò ¢rst that captivus does not mean `vaincu',
and second that since the Alamanni were not Christian, how could they
proclaim Clovis' mercy by o¡ering their tears to a God whom they did
not know? He is right about both of these points, but needed to raise a
third. Translators have skated over the adverbs in the passage too. Adhuc
modi¢es nuper, which in turn modi¢es captivus: the captivity of this
people had been a state that had continued for a time up till recently."ò"
The word order makes it clear that nuper cannot be construed with
solutus, as `recently freed by you'. And, if one tried that, adhuc then
would be rendered nonsensical, because it must apply to a continuous
ñä
W. Junghans, Hitoire critique de re© gnes de Childrich et de Chlodovech, trans. G. Monod
(Paris, "ñæñ), p. äò; H. von Schubert, Die Unterwerfung der Alamannen unter die Franken
(Strassburg, "ððã), pp. "æò^ "; Vogel, `Chlodwigs Sieg', p. âñä; Cassiodori Senatoris Variae, ed.
Th. Mommsem, MGH, AA XII (Berlin, "ðñã), p. xxxiii; A. Ruppersberg, `Ûber Ort und Zeit
von Chlodwigs Alamannensieg', Bonner JarhbÏcher "ò" ("ðñæ), pp. âð^å", at p. äð; G. Kurth,
Clovis (ánd edn, Paris "ñò"), ".âòä, n. "; A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands " (ârd ^ ãth
edn, "ñòã), p. äññ.; L. Levillain, `Le bapteª me de Clovis', Bibliothe© que de l'Ecole des Chartes,
"ñòå, pp. ãæá ^ðð, at p. ãðâ: all cited by G. Reverdy, `Note [sur l'interprëtation d'un passage
d'Avitus]', Le moyen aªge áå ("ñ"â), pp. áæã ^æ, at p. áæä, nn. " ^ ð.
ñå
Above n. ñæ, pp. áæã ^æ, followed by Daly, `Clovis', p. åâð, n. äå.
ñæ
Levillain, `La conversion', p. "ðð.
ñð
B. Krusch, `Zwei Heiligenleben des Jonas von Susa', Mitteilungen des Instituts fÏr Îsterrei-
chische Geschichtsforschung "ã ("ðñâ), pp. âðä^ ããð, at p. ããã; W. Levison, `Zur Geschichte [des
FrankenkÎnigs Chlodovech]', Bonner JahrbÏcher "òâ ("ðñð), pp. ãá^ ðå, at p. åå.
ññ
Wood, `Gregory of Tours', pp. áåñ^ æò.
"òò
Reverdy, `Note', p. áæä.
"ò"
Reverdy translates the adverbs correctly, ibid., p. áæå.

44 Danuta Shanzer
state, such as captivitas, not to a punctual action, such as solutus."òá

These people cannot be the recently conquered Alamanni."òâ
What of the spiritual captivity? This seems more promising, despite
the fact that Reverdy does not cite any parallels for the interpretation he
proposes. The ¢gurative use of captivitas in Christian contexts is well
known."òã A contemporary letter of Pope Symmachus employs the trope
in a missionary context."òä The Franks could certainly be described as
captivi (sensu spirituali) up till recently, and they could in some sense
have been seen to have been soluti (released) by Clovis.
But there are di¤culties with interpreting the passage in this way,
and to see them one must go back a few lines to the beginning of Avitus'
tripartite rhetorical quasi-praeteritio, three questions that anticipate a
negative answer (numquid). Avitus might have wanted to preach three
Christian virtues to Clovis: ¢des, humilitas and misericordia, but he
¢nds that he does not need to. Faith Clovis has already accepted without
a preacher; humility he has been demonstrating de facto for a long time
by paying attention to Avitus' advice, and now by ¢nally making his
profession de iure in public.
And misericordia? Reverdy rejects the standard meaning `clëmence'
in favour of `bontë active', but it is unclear on what basis he does so."òå
Misericordia is the sense of mercy or pity that causes one to be kind to
those who are weak. The scenario does not ¢t the conversion of the
Franks. First, there is no evidence that they were crying out to be
permitted to convert. Second, authors are best elucidated through their
own usage, and paganism is not described as a state of miseria requiring
misericordia in Avitus. Compare his description of the state of being
pagan in Ep. ð, ãò. "^ä: diu dogmata tenebrarum et mysteriorum orien-
talium ferocium barbarorum corda secluserant . . . sic diversarum terri-
biles animos nationum aut haeresis Arriana maculaverat aut naturalis
inmanitas possidebat. Paganism is a rough, dangerous, and ¢erce
business. Thirdly, the rhetorical parallellism in the passage does not
work, if one accepts Reverdy's interpretation. For it is clear that unum
"òá
Von den Steinen, `Chlodwigs', p. ãðâ, tries this: `grad eben von Euch freigelassene Schar'. But
he has omitted the adhuc.
"òâ
Van de Vyver, `La Victoire' II ("ñâæ), p. äâ states that this interpretation has been abandoned,
`qu' a© prësent personne n'applique encore aux Alamans.'
"òã
See TLL s.v. `captivitas' âåð.äæ ¡.
"òä
Symmachus, Ep. "á.ð (A. Thiel, Epistolae Romanorum Ponti¢cum Genuinae (Brunsberg,
"ðåð), p. æ"ã): Si enim qui praecessit beatitudinem tuam inter sanctos constitutus Leo archiepis-
copus ad Attilam tunc errorem barbarum per se currere non duxit indignum, ut captivitatem
corrigeret corporalem, nec tantum Christianorum, sed et Judaeorum, ut credibile est, atque
paganorum: quanto magis festinare ad tuam attinet sanctitatem, non ad corporeae, quae bello
¢t, captivitatis correctionem atque conversionem, sed animarum, quae captivatae sunt vel
quotidie captivantur!
"òå
Reverdy, `Note', p. áææ.

est, quod velimus augeri . . . introduces a new topic. Clovis does not
need any improvement in the area of ¢des, humilitas and misericordia,
but he does need to start evangelizing. And given that misericordia,
which all who follow Reverdy must take in the sense of `relenting', or
`taking pity on paganism', is distinguished from the evangelization, it
seems best to take it in its customary sense of `clemency or kindness
inspired by pity'.
Reverdy did not see how the Gallo-Romans in general could be said
to have been captive under the Visigoths."òæ While I would agree that the
idea is problematic, if one takes it literally, it is perfectly possible, if
understood ¢guratively. Authors such as Victor of Vita"òð and Jerome"òñ
used Old Testament typology to dramatize the plight of Romans in times
of barbarian invasion. But one wonders what the average Burgundian
would have thought, had Avitus openly described the relationship
between Gallo-Romans and Arian barbarian king as captivitas. Avitus is
a `collaborator', and he could not have used those particular colours to
depict the situation of Romans under barbarian rule. For this reason I
¢nd it unlikely that this is an allusion to Gallo-Romans living either
under Frankish or under Visigothic domination.
The conclusion is clear: Avitus here alludes to some real Christian
populus captivus, that is to say, people who had been taken captive. And
this is no surprise, for he had frequently been involved in the ransoming
of prisoners taken in war. But while there have been treatments of the
ransoming of captives in relation to other ¢gures such as Caesarius of
Arles ""ò and Sidonius Apollinaris,""" Avitus' activities have passed largely
unremarked.
The freeing and ransoming of captives was an important act of miseri-
cordia.""á Bishops regularly helped ransom their own people, taken captive
abroad. But they also, on occasion, ransomed enemy captives held in their
"òæ
Ibid., p. áæå, citing Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (ä vols in å, Leipzig "ñòã), I.äññ.
"òð
See Historia Persecutionis Vandalicae ".".ã and ".á.æ for two of many examples of scriptural
quotations adduced to create an atmosphere of Old Testament emergency.
"òñ
Take Jerome's Ep. "áæ."á on the fall of Rome, for example.
""ò
Klingshirn, `Charity and Power[: Caesarius of Arles and the Ransoming of Captives in Sub-
Roman Gaul]', Journal of Roman Studies æä ("ñðä), pp. "ðâ ^áòâ.
"""
J. Harries, Sidonius Apollinaris, p. á"ò on Ep. å.ã.
""á
Ambrose, De O¤ciis Ministrorum á."ä, Ambrose, Des o¤ciis: Les devoirs, ed. M. Testard
(Paris, "ñðã^ ñá); also Patricius, Epistula ad Coroticum "ã, Patricius, Epistula ad Coroticum,
in Patrick, Confession et Lettre a© Coroticus, ed. R.P.C. Hanson and C. Blanc, Sources
Chrëtiennes áãñ (Paris, "ñæð) with a speci¢c allusion to the practice of Christian Gallo-
Romans. In this context, see Von den Steinen, `Chlodwigs', p. ãðð, `Loskauf der Kriegsgefan-
genen eine Hauptsorge der Kirche.' Also for laymen. See Ennodius, Ep. ä.áò (Vita Epifani in
Magni Felicis Ennodi [VE] Opera, ed. F. Vogel, MGH, AA VII (Berlin, "ððä), LXXX (Opusc. â),
pp. ðã ^"òñ) for a request to Avitus â on behalf of a friend: germanum suum praefatus in
vicinitate Aquileiensis civitatis adserit esse captivum; qui ut a vobis iuvetur exposcit. sanctae
domus vestrae consuetudo vulgata est.

46 Danuta Shanzer
own territory. When Klingshirn discussed Caesarius of Arles' ransoming

of captives, he made the interesting and important suggestion that
Caesarius stood to gain ecclesiastical status for himself and for Arles when
he acted as redemptor captivorum for pagan Franks taken in the war of
äòæ^ð and for Burgundians (in ä"á^"â) who lay outside his episcopal juris-
diction.""â Klingshirn, however, failed to mention a very important
precedent for Caesarius' action: his metropolitan rival, Avitus, who had
already ransomed Ligurian prisoners taken by the Burgundians in the mid-
ãñòs.""ã He had not merely ransomed enemy prisoners (Vita Epifani [VE]
"æã) taken by his own regional king, Gundobad, but had also seen to it that
Godegisel (in Geneva, outside his metropolitan jurisdiction) relinquished
claim to the prisoners he held (VE "æã).""ä
Misericordia
Avitus' involvement in ransoming was not con¢ned to the well-known
episode mentioned in the Vita Epifani. Three of his surviving letters deal
with the practical aspects of the business,""å and in them misericordia
plays a prominent part. In Ep. "á (to Maximus of Pavia), ãå.", misericordia
is the kindness shown by the Italian bishop to Gallic captives in
northern Italy that makes them feel as if they were back in their own
patria.""æ In Ep. "ò also (to Eustorgius of Milan), where again the context
is one of the ransoming of Gallic captives and the nostrarum aerumna
regionum (ãã.áò^"), misericordia is the virtue that inspires Eustorgius'
¢nancial intercession.""ð For Avitus, as one would expect, misericordia is
mercy inspired by pity, particularly pity aroused by miseria. See,
tellingly, Ep. "" (to Caesarius of Arles), ãä."" misericordiae aditus non
lateat, ubi est miseriae locus, where the miseriae locus is Maximianus'
own homeland, recently overturned by invasion.""ñ
Lacrimae
Whoever the populus is, after inspiring misericordia in Clovis, and
causing him to free it, it is now conveying or publicizing Clovis' miseri-
""â
Klingshirn, `Charity and Power'. p. "ñò, "ñá, "ñã and "ñæ.
""ã
See Ennodius, VE "æâ ^ã Dedit etiam praestantissimus inter Gallos Avitus, Viennensis
episcopus, in quo se peritia velut in diversorio lucidae domus inclusit . . . nec in uno loco summus
vir in illa se regione continuit, ne forsitan in longinquo degentes dominorum feritas inpediret.
""ä
Cf. Klingshirn, `Charity and Power', p. "ñ", on Caesarius: `True the ransom of enemy
prisoners was unusual, but it was not unprecedented . . . What is most unusual about
Caesarius is not his ransom of prisoners in the city of Arles, but his ransom of captives from
other cities in Gaul.'
""å
Epp. "ò, "á and âä.
""æ
Note the telling parallel commonplace in Ep. Austrasiacae á.â: captivos exinde liberabis et a
iugo servitutis absolvas: si quis in conspectu vestro venerit , peregrinum se esse non sentiat .
""ð
Avitus, ed. Peiper, Ep. "ò, ãã.áä.
""ñ
Ibid., "", ãä.ð^ñ: nec illa vobis regionis suae subversio quasi incognita exaggerari debeat.

cordia to men, in its joy to be released, and to God, in its tears. The
Vita Epifani provides some interesting comparative material. One of its
central episodes is a description of Epifanius' embassy to Gundobad to
redeem Ligurian captives taken by the Burgundians. Clementia and
misericordia are the Leitmotivs of Epifanius' speech. Theodoric begs a
favour misericorditer, out of pity for the Ligurians, and Gundobad is to
grant it through his clemency."áò Tears are part of the response of the
captives as they return."á" Tears of joy are mentioned by Epifanius:
monstrant lacrimae gaudiorum, quas dolorum alumnas nunc parturit
exultatio."áá And tears move Laconius, Gundobad's counsellor to pity."áâ
Tears are very much part of the aftermath of a ransoming.
Clovis and the ransoming of prisoners

As we have seen, Avitus was interested in the ransoming of captives.
But the topic also comes up on various occasions in letters written to, or
by, Clovis. Long before his conversion, Bishop Remigius had urged
Clovis to use his wealth to ransom prisoners, when he wrote to him on
the occasion of his taking charge in Belgica Secunda."áã And after the
war of äòæ, in his letter to the Aquitainian bishops Clovis himself
addressed the plight of those who had been taken prisoner. The
beginning of this letter speci¢cally deals with ecclesiastics who su¡ered
the vis captivitatis."áä They had supposedly been immune to this outrage.
Clovis then goes on to discuss lay people who were taken captive extra
pace, presumably in battle. They are to be released, provided their
bishops vouch for them."áå The third category of captive seems to include
both clerics and lay people abducted in pace nostra."áæ Who were these
captivi? Given that they are under the protection of Catholic bishops
(apostolica sede dignissimis), we must assume that they are Gallo-Romans
from Visigothic territory."áð
"áò
VE "ää: si quod ille misericorditer postulat, tu clementer accomodes. Also VE "äæ: animi tui
clementia and VE "åá: Parum enim gratiae impendimus illius imperio, cuius misericordiae nil
debemus.
"á"
VE "æä: et pro mactandorum sanguine terram made¢eri lacrimis exultantium.
"áá
Ibid., "ãá^ â.
"áâ
Ibid., "åñ: cuius te precibus fuisse permotum, cum apud nos verba faceret, animorum indices
lacrimae testabantur.
"áã
Ep. Austrasiacae á.â: Paternas quascunque opes possides, captivos exinde liberabis et a iugo
servitutis absolvas.
"áä
Chlodowici regis ad episcopos epistola, ed. A. Boretius, MGH, Capitularia Regum Francorum
(Hanover, "ððâ), pp. " ^á.
"áå
Ibid., De caeteris quidem captivis laicis qui extra pace sunt captivati et fuerint adprobati,
apostolia cui volueritis arbitrii vestri est non negandum.
"áæ
Ibid., Nam de his qui in pace nostra tam clerici quam laici subrepti fuissent . . .
"áð
Ibid, Enuntiante fama quod actum fuerit vel praeceptum omni exercitui nostro, priusquam
in patriam Gotorum ingrederemur, beatitudini vestrae praeterire non potuit.

48 Danuta Shanzer
Clovis gives assurance that episcopal apostolia will be honoured, but

ends the letter with what almost looks like a warning: Sic tamen populus
noster petit, ut cuicumque epistulas vestras praestare fueritis dignati cum
sacramentum per Deum et benedictione vestra dicere non tardetis, rem
istam quae poscitur veram esse: quia multorum varietates vel falsitates
inventae sunt ut compraehendatur, sicut scriptum est: `Perit iustus cum
impio.' The quotation from Genesis XVIII.áâ is ominous, since it suggests
that captives might be subject, not just to servitude, but to death."áñ
Clovis acknowledges that he had promised protection to Catholic eccle-
siastics, but that his armies had not observed his orders. There is no
apology or justi¢cation: `qui s'excuse, s'accuse'. Instead he simply says that
he will honour Catholic bishops' letters of intercession for their parishi-
oners, but that they must be properly authenticated with personal seals.
Since the bishops are warned to make sure that they vouch for captives
in good faith, and since Clovis explicitly speaks of multorum varietates
vel falsitates, it is clear that there was no general amnesty. Some people
(and some bishops, no doubt) were doctoring their documents, and
Clovis was not having any of that.
While Clovis' letter cannot be dated precisely (it must be later than
summer äòæ and the battle of Vogliacum, and before ä"", Clovis' death), it
seems most reasonable to place it in the immediate aftermath of the war,
say in äòð."âò Clearly a large number of Gallo-Romans had been
captured, some legitimately, some not.
Von den Steinen had suggested that the populus captivus of Avitus'
letter were Gallo-Roman inhabitants of Bordeaux, taken by Clovis in
ãñð."â" Now while theoretically there were a number of occasions on
which Clovis could have taken Christian prisoners, we lack speci¢c
evidence. Avitus could, for example, have been alluding to some act of
mercy of Clovis' that a¡ected Burgundian captives taken in äòò^". He
would have had an interest in such people. But we are at the mercy of
the surviving sources, and there is no concrete evidence ^ hence no
license for reconstructing an allusion to an otherwise unattested event.
All we can do is look for evidence of Christian prisoners whose freeing
is attested in contemporary primary sources.
I would suggest that Avitus' populus captivus refers speci¢cally to
Catholic Gallo-Romans taken captive during the wars of äòæ^ð. The
situation is a very precise one, and one that is attested in Clovis' letter to
the Aquitainian bishops. Clovis' letter might be read as background to
"áñ
Ennodius claims that the Burgundians killed prisoners who comported themselves with
excessive pride. See VE "å".
"âò
Daly, `Clovis', p. åãä.
"â"
Von den Steinen, `Chlodwigs', pp. ãñð and ãæå, n. ". He cites the Auct. Hauniense s.a. ãñð in
MGH AA IX (Munich, "ðñá), p. ââ".

Avitus'. A bishop, well known to have been involved in freeing captives

himself, thanks a king, who had recently been prickly on the subject, for
his concessions to Catholics in distress. Avitus had a cousin, Apollinaris
(and other close kinsmen), living in Visigothic territory, and he
frequently exhibited concern about his political peril."âá Romans from
the Auvergne, including Apollinaris, had fought alongside the Visigoths
at Vogliacum, and were hence subject to Clovis' wrath."ââ Avitus may well
have had a personal, in addition to a professional, interest in Roman
prisoners taken by the Franks in äòæ^ð. Since Gundobad and Clovis
were allies, he was in a good position to intercede. Interestingly enough,
in a letter that must immediately post-date the death of Alaric II, Avitus
sends his brother, Apollinaris of Valence, detailed instructions regarding
the fashioning of an episcopal signet ring."âã Dare one hazard a guess
that his personal seal may have been frequently required on documents
regarding prisoners in the wake of the wars of äòæ^ð?
Populus would have to be understood in a more restricted sense, not
as a nation or totality of a population or tribe, but as a collective noun
used for a large number of people who had been captured. We do not
know for certain how many prisoners were taken during the war of äòæ,
but Ennodius' Vita Epifani provides some comparative material to show
how many captives could be taken in a single invasion, and what sort of
in£ammatory rhetoric was used to amplify the magnitude of the disaster.
At VE "âð Ennodius speaks of universa Italiae loca originariis viduata
cultoribus and at VE "äæ he trots out a prosopopoieia of the whole
country. Yet VE "âð and "åá paint a desolate picture of the ¢elds of
Liguria alone, and in fact it was only there that the Burgundians had
made their incursions. When the captives are graciously freed by
Gundobad at VE "æ" the numbers who left are said to make the rural
areas of Gaul seem empty."âä On their march back, they are described as
tantae liberatorum falanges."âå The ¢gures quoted are ãòò captives from
Lyons and more than å,òòò altogether."âæ
Avitus in Vienne and Aeonius and Caesarius in Arles had been
disputing the primacy of the Gauls,"âð and one wonders whether
Caesarius' ransomings were not part of a more complicated series of
episcopal displays of charity that began with Avitus in ãñä and continued
with Avitus supplicating Clovis on behalf of Gallo-Romans from
"âá
Epp. áã, âå, ä" and äá.
"ââ
DLH á.âæ.
"âã
Ep. ðæ.
"âä
VE "æ": Tanta istius iam liberae multitudinis frequentia subito adstitit, ut desolata crederes
esse etiam incolis rura Gallorum.
"âå
Ibid., "æä.
"âæ
Ibid., "æá: Plus quam sex milia animarum. Others escaped.
"âð
L. Duchesne, Fastes ëpiscopaux de l'ancienne Gaul , (â vols, Paris "ñòæ), I."âã ^å.

50 Danuta Shanzer
Aquitaine in äòæ^ð. After ä"ò Avitus was negotiating the liberation of

Ostrogothic captives in Burgundian territory on behalf of Liberius and
Gemellus, and generously refusing to accept ransom payments."âñ Avitus
wrote to Maximus of Pavia, in the wake of Burgundian-Ostrogothic
hostilities, thanked him for his kindness to Gallic captives, and asked
him to help negotiate the release of a hostage, Avulus."ãò Thus Avitus
seems to have set himself up as a counsellor to supplement or compete
with St Remigius. He congratulates Clovis on his baptism (while
carefully avoiding any allusion to his brother bishop) "ã" and encourages
him in acts of mercy and evangelization.
Three things are at issue here: Clovis' clemency, Avitus' interest in
the ransoming of captives (perhaps his personal interest in these parti-
cular captives) and ^ behind all of this ^ a terminus post quem for
Clovis' baptism. His baptism (though not necessarily, I emphasize, his
conversion)"ãá must post-date the freeing of the populus captivus. If these
are indeed Catholic Gallo-Romans taken prisoner by the Franks in
Visigothic territory, then the baptism occurred after äòæ.
Gregory of Tours and Clovis' battle against the Alamanni

In textual criticism there is an axiom that codices must be weighed, not
counted."ãâ The same should apply mutatis mutandis to historical
sources. Daly draws a distinction between `primary' and `secondary'
sources in a way that makes it clear that to him `primary' means above
all `contemporary', and `secondary' means `later'."ãã But it is not merely
the fact that Gregory is later that diminishes his value: later sources can
draw on highly accurate earlier ones."ãä Gregory's work is, whether one
likes it or not, a non-documentary literary text. However much pomp
and rhetoric went into Avitus' letter, it remains a document,"ãå not the
product of research or imagination alone, but of an occasion. It is ¢rmly
anchored to a known recipient. This is to say that when one considers
"âñ
See Avitus, ed. Peiper, Ep. âä, esp. åä.âò pretio tamen, quod portitores adtulerant, non
recepto.
"ãò
Avitus, Ep. "á.
"ã"
See Vogel, `Chlodwigs Sieg', pp. âñæ ^ ð who rightly points to the in£uence of the Remigius-
legend on Gregory.
"ãá
For this important distinction, see Wood, `Gregory of Tours', p. áæò.
"ãâ
Ponderandi non numerandi.
"ãã
Daly, `Clovis', p. å"ñ `My purpose in what follows is to draw attention to what early sources
can o¡er on their own, individually and as a group.' Wood, `Gregory of Tours', p. áäò.
"ãä
Gregory had sources too, of course. See Von den Steinen, `Chlodwigs', pp. ãá" ^â.
"ãå
Albeit a transmitted one: a commemorative inscription on stone would be a good example
of a non-transmitted documentary text.

the possibilities for error, and the degree and the nature of the lying "ãæ
possible whether for Gregory writing well after Clovis' death or for
Avitus writing directly to Clovis at the time of his baptism, it is clear
that for most matters Avitus is the more reliable source.
Gregory can be convincingly shown to introduce Biblical typology
into his narrative,"ãð to model events on earlier historical events (and tell
us so too, as is the case with Constantine and Clovis"ãñ), and to have had
considerable di¤culties in calculating dates."äò Much has been made of
the fact that Gregory places Clovis' Alamannic victory before his
conversion, and there has been much discussion of how many Alamannic
victories there were."ä"
In "ðñð Wilhelm Levison, following Hauck,"äá drew attention to two
spools of material in Gregory's account of Clovis' conversion. The one
attributes the process of conversion to Clotilde's persistence, the other
(one could call it the Constantinian typological account) to a miracle
during the battle against the Alemanni."äâ Levison adduced the letter of
Nicetius of Trier as close-to-contemporary evidence that, though it
mentions victories against Gundobad and Alaric as consequences of
conversion, says nothing about any battle against the Alemanni in
connection with the conversion."äã Nicetius' letter supports the `Clotilde-
spool' in Gregory's account, and ex silentio discredits the `Constantinian
spool'. There are thus sound source-critical arguments for discarding the
chronological link between the battle against the Alemanni and the
conversion.
But for those who still persist in believing Gregory's chronology
(battle against the Alamanni^conversion^baptism^Burgundian war, and
so on), I should like to draw attention to a simple detail in the passage
where Gregory mentions Clovis' battle against the Alamanni. An
accurate interpretation of this passage has considerable importance both
"ãæ
Von den Steinen, `Chlodwigs', p. ãáò draws a false dichotomy between `Wissen oder Falsch-
wissen', and tells us that Gregory `will . . . nicht irgend etwas erzÌhlen, sondern . . . wie es
seines Wissens gewesen ist.' Distortion, deliberate or otherwise, must always be taken into
account.
"ãð
See DLH á.â" tria milia and Acts II.ã".
"ãñ
See DLH á.â"; Eusebius, V ita Constantini ".áæ ¡.; Vogel, `Chlodwigs Sieg', p. âðä; G. Monod,
Eè tudes critiques sur les sources de l'histoire mërovingienne (Paris, "ðæá), p. ææ.
"äò
See Wood, `Gregory of Tours', p. áäã for Gregory's evident di¤culties in working out Clovis'
death-date.
"ä"
Van de Vyver, `La victoire' II ("ñâæ), pp. ãä^ äð; Weiss, Chlodwigs Taufe, pp. áâ^ âá.
"äá
Levison cited A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (ánd edn, "ñòã), I.äñä ^ñ. I have
been unable to obtain that edition, but the passage referred to is probably the same as A.
Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (Leipzig, "ððæ), I."òæ ^ ñ, esp. p. "òð, n.á which has an
account of the two strands of material in Gregory of Tours. This note seems to have been
removed from the "ñáá edition of Hauck (pp. "òå ^æ).
"äâ
W. Levison, `Zur Geschichte', pp. ää ^ å.
"äã
Levison, `Zur Geschichte', p. äæ.

52 Danuta Shanzer
for our assessment of the chronology implied by Gregory's text and for
our belief in at least one of the much-vaunted quinquennial dates that
appear in only some manuscripts of the DLH."ää
Regina vero non cessabat praedicare, ut deum cognosceret, et idola
neglegerit. Sed nullo modo ad haec credenda poterat commoveri,
donec tandem aliquando bellum contra Alamannos commoveretur, in
quo compulsus est con¢teri necesitate, quod prius voluntate negaverat.
Factum est autem, ut con£igente utroque exercitu, vehementer caeder-
entur . . . (DLH, á.âò)
Queen Clotild continued to pray that her husband might recognize
the true God and give up his idol-worship. Nothing could persuade
him to accept Christianity. Finally war broke out against the
Alamanni and in this con£ict he was forced by necessity to accept
what he had refused of his own free will. It turned out that when the
two armies met on the battle¢eld there was great slaughter . . . (trans L.
Thorpe, Harmondsworth, "ñæã)
A small, but important word has been neglected both by Thorpe and
by others:"äå the adverb aliquando. A crude, but more accurate trans-
lation of the passage would be: `The queen did not give up trying to
preach and to convince [him] to recognize God and abandon idols, but it
was impossible to move [him] to believe in these things, until, ¢nally, at
some time or other, war was started against the Alamanns.' O.M.
Dalton's version is far more accurate, but its old-fashioned style may
puzzle some modern readers: `Now the queen without ceasing urged the
king to confess the true God, and forsake his idols; but in no wise could
she move him to this belief until at length he made war upon a time
against the Alamanni.'
Nothing could be more damaging than that aliquando, `some time or
other'. Gregory is telling us very clearly that he did not know when the
battle against the Alamanni took place, that is he did not know its
absolute chronology. And if he did not know its absolute chronology,
what reason is there to trust his relative chronology (Alamannic battle^
conversion^campaign against Gundobad), reeking of pious imitatio
Constantini, as it does? Furthermore, the presence of the deliberately
vague aliquando is a strong argument against the authenticity of the
"ää
See Levison, `Zur Geschichte', p. äò.
"äå
E.g. Von den Steinen,`Chlodwigs', p. ãáå: èrst als der Alamannenkrieg ausbrach'. One need hardly
say that the presence of aliquando undoes Von den Steinen's reconstruction (followed by
Levillain,`La conversion', p. "åæ) of the Alamannen-Krieg narrative as the eye-witness account of
the aging Chrotechildis, narrated to Gregory! Thorpe's translation is taken from Gregory of
Tours, History of the Franks, trans. L. Thorpe (Harmondsworth, "ñæã), p. "ãâ. Dalton's translation
is from Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks, ed. and trans. O.M. Dalton (Oxford, "ñæá), p. åð.

quinquennial dates in the DLH."äæ The Gregorian aliquando directly

contradicts actum anno "ä regni sui in DLH á.âò."äð Here again are
further grounds for no preferring non-documentary sources to
documentary ones.
Cassiodorus' Variae á.ã" to Clovis that must date to äòå ^ early äòæ
at the latest shows that there had been a very recent victory against the
Alamanni in which their king was killed. One simply does not send
diplomatic letters of congratulation to fellow-kings on battles that they
won eleven years before. Nothing could be clearer than the phrase nova
proelia at the beginning of the letter."äñ
The battle in which the Alamannic king was killed has traditionally
generated a terminus post quem for the chronology of Clovis' conversion.
Gregory of Tours connects the conversion with the battle; therefore it
must have occurred after the battle. All exponents of an early date of
baptism have to try to explain away Variae á.ã", arguing that the letter is
very early,"åò that the victory mentioned need not be recent,"å" or else
that there were several Alamannic battles,"åá and that either Gregory "åâ
or Cassiodorus is confused about which battle the Alammanic battle
mentioned by Cassiodorus, which must date to äòå at the earliest, need
not be the same as the battle that was the scene of Clovis' conversion.
The dilemma is stark. Those who want to hold on to Gregory's battle-
¢eld conversion must accept a later date of baptism: Variae á.ã" shows
that the battle occurred shortly before spring äòæ, probably late in the
campaigning season in äòå."åã Three independent sources mention the
"äæ
For more on this problem see Levison, `Zur Geschichte', pp. ãä^ äò. Kurth, Eè tudes franques
(á vols, Paris and Brussels "ñ"ñ), II.á"â thought that the dates came from annals of Tours.
"äð
Krusch (MGH Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum I (Hanover, "ððã), p. æå n. á) rightly
brackets the words citing Bonnet; see also B. Krusch, `Chlodovechs Taufe in Tours äòæ und die
Legende Gregors von Tours (Reims ãñå)', Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fÏr Ìltere deutsche
Geschichtskunde ãñ ("ñâá), ãäæ^ åñ, at ãåä.
"äñ
Variae á.ã".": gratulamur quod gentem Francorum . . . in nova proelia concitastis et Alaman-
nicos populos . . . subdidistis. The combination of tenses, present and present perfect, makes it
absolutely clear that the battle is an action that was recently completed ^ in present time.
Pace Levillain, `La conversion', pp. "æå ^ æ and W. Levison, `Zur Geschichte', p. äò. Van de Vyver
`La victoire' II ("ñâæ), p. ãñ rightly takes nova in an adverbial sense.
"åò
This is implicitly the position of W. Junghans, Kritische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
frÌnkischen KÎnige Childerich und Chlodovich (GÎttingen, "ðäæ), pp. ã" and æã where he
states that Theodoric had seen the problem coming for a long time.
"å"
See Van de Vyver, `La victoire' I ("ñâå), p. ðå".
"åá
Ibid., p. ðåò.
"åâ
Ibid., p. ðåæ.
"åã
Vogel, `Chlodwigs Sieg', p. âñ" and ãò". He puts the battle in the ¢rst half of äòå. C. Tanzi,
`Studio sulla cronologia dei libri `Variarum' di Cassiodoro Senatore', Archeografo Triestino,
n.s. "â ("ððæ), pp. " ^ âå, at p. âã, had seen the problem long ago, when he weighed Gregory's
evidence against Cassiodorus. Gregory's chronology is o¡. For further discussion of the
chronology of Cassiodorus' diplomatic letters related to the Franco-Visigothic war see my
`Two Clocks and a Wedding: Theodoric's Diplomatic Relations w ith the Burgundians', forth-
coming in Romanobarbarica.

54 Danuta Shanzer
death of the Alemannic king, as an identifying mark, so the onus

probandi is on those who want to claim that these are two di¡erent
battles."åä The French have celebrated Clovis' baptism prematurely.
Could they forgo a Clovis who, like Christ, was baptized in his âòth
year? "åå Those prepared to give up Gregory's tale of a battle¢eld
conversion in light of the evidence that Gregory did not know when the
battle was in absolute terms (and may not have known its chronology in
relation to other events), can then uncouple the conversion and the
battle: "åæ there is then no terminus post quem for Clovis' conversion other
than the freeing of the populus captivus mentioned in Avitus, Ep. ãå.
Finally I should like brie£y to explore some of the implications of
these ¢ndings for the relationship between Clovis and Avitus. Not
surprisingly, perhaps, this Clovis begins to look a great deal more like
Gundobad. Less the rough-and-ready pagan and splitter of skulls than
someone with mental acrimonia, someone whom Arians have worked on
for a while, and someone who both receives letters from bishops, and
sends them. In drawing such a Clovis, I part company with Gibbon who
stated, `But the savage conqueror of Gaul was incapable of examining the
proofs of a religion which depends on the laborious investigation of
historic evidence and speculative theology.' "åð Even more important is
that Clovis deals with extra-territorial bishops. In Ep. ãå, æä.áä^ð Avitus
states that he has received a letter from Clovis announcing his intention
to be baptized. Later on in the same letter (æå.å) he alludes to the
humilitas the king has long (iam dudum) shown him in his service
(devotio). Clearly there had been correspondence for some time, perhaps
even an encounter.
Epistle ãå of Avitus still needs further elucidation: what were the
occasions that led to contact between Clovis and Avitus? Was Remigius,
despite his famous eloquence,"åñ not doing an adequate job as a
spokesman for Catholicism? "æò Was this why Clovis went beyond his
"åä
See Vogel, `Chlodwigs Sieg', p. âðð. Ennodius, Panegyricus æá: Cui evenit habere regem,
postquam meruit perdidisse; Variae á.ã" á: su¤ciat illum regem cum gentis cecidisse superbia.
Even L. Schmidt concedes this point, see Geschichte der deutschen StÌmme á (Berlin, "ñ"ä),
pp. áñå ^ æ. Spencer, `Dating the Baptism', p. ""å, obfuscates the issue in claiming that the two
Alaman battles are `very di¡erently described'. The salient feature, that the Alaman king was
killed, is common to both.
"åå
For the suggestion that the date was mystical see G. Tessier, Le Bapteª me de Clovis (Paris,
"ñåã), p. ðá. Also C. Grell, `Clovis du grand sie© cle aux lumie© res', Bibliothe© que de l'Eè cole des
Chartes "äã ("ññå), pp. "æâ^ á"ð, at p. "ñå.
"åæ
Vogel, `Chlodwigs Sieg', pp. âñã^ ä, even though he argues for a late date for the battle (äòå),
wishes to couple battle and conversion, for he believed that the populus captivus in Avitus,
Ep. ãå was the Alamanni. See above p. ãâ.
"åð
Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (New York, "ñâá), vol. II. âñ".
"åñ
See Sidonius, Ep. ñ.æ.
"æò
Note how Avitus fails to mention him at all, and implies, with an allusion to Romans, that
Clovis has been converted sine praedicatore. See above, n. ñã.

territories to consult a Burgundian bishop? Or did Avitus spontaneously

make contact with Clovis and try to convert him? Was he working on
Lentichildis too? "æ" Did Avitus meet Clovis in the course of the negotia-
tions following the Franco-Burgundian war of äòò^" ^ perhaps in
connection with the ransoming of captives? "æá Or was Avitus the
marriage-broker for the Catholic Chrotechildis? He seems to have been
involved in planning a foreign marriage for an anonymous daughter of
Gundobad's who died prematurely after äò". "æâ If Clovis married Chrote-
childis late (i.e. after äò"),"æã it is quite possible, as Van de Vyver
suggested, that he had been promised this girl ¢rst."æä Indeed, Clovis is
really the only likely candidate as a prospective son-in-law for Gundobad
shortly after äò". Theodoric was already married to Audo£edis, and had
no male heirs. Although Gundobad might have wanted to repay the
Visigoths for sheltering him against Clovis, Alaric II had married
Theodegotha."æå Thrasamund was married to Amalafrida. The Warni,
Heruli, and Thuringians were allies of Alaric's."ææ If Avitus had been
involved in trying to marry Gundobad's anonymous daughter to Clovis,
then we have a meaningful context for Clovis' and the bishop of Vienne's
relationship, and speci¢cally for Avitus' interest in the king's religious
beliefs. Any reconstruction of such events must of necessity be tentative
and conjectural, but Avitus' Ep. ãå still raises questions that should be
asked ^ and some answers can be essayed.
My re-examination of these four problematic passages has led to the
following conclusions. First, that Clovis was not a pagan, but an Arian
catechumen, or at least closely in£uenced by Arians at the time of his
conversion. This is obviously something that French historians might
prefer not to highlight: an Arianizing Clovis looks just like the other
barbarian kings. He ceases to be a pagan unicum ^ the Frank who saw
the light. Second, there is no allusion to Clovis' honorary consulate in
"æ"
See above, n. â".
"æá
Gundobad exiled Frankish captives to Toulouse. See DLH á.ââ.
"æâ
The girl died before her marriage to an external rex. Ep. ä is a consolation-letter written by
Avitus to Gundobad. He implies that he (Avitus) needed consolation for the girl's death, and
that his rivals would have had reason to exult over his failure, had the girl died immediately
after her marriage, rather than before it.
"æã
See Weiss Chlodwigs Taufe pp. ãã and äâ.
"æä
The suggestion was made tentatively by A. Van de Vyver, `Clovis et la politique mëditer-
ranëenne', in `Recueil d'Eè tudes dëdiëes a© la mëmoire de H. Pirenne' (Bruxelles "ñâæ), pp. âåæ^
ðæ, at pp. âæä ^ å. Followed by Weiss, Chlodwigs Taufe p. ã" ^ á.
"æå
J. Moorhead, Theoderic in Italy (Oxford, "ññá), p. äá, dates the marriage to the early ãñòs. It
may have been connected to the help against Odoacer, extended to Theodoric by the
Visigoths. See Jordanes, Getica, in Jordanis Romana et Getica, MGH, AA V," (Berlin, "ððá),
pp. áñæ ^ð; Bellum Gothicum, in Procopius, Opera Omnia, ed. J. Haury, vol á (ã vols, Leipzig,
"ñåâ), "á.áá.ãâ; Anonymus Valesianus, ed. V. Gardthausen, in Ammiani Marcellini rerum
gestarum quae supersunt, vol. á (á vols, Stuttgart, "ñåå), "á.åâ (who reverses the daughters).
"ææ
Cassiodorus, Variae â.â.â.

56 Danuta Shanzer
Avitus, Ep. ãå, æä."æ, so that that passage does not provide a later
terminus post quem of äòð for the baptism. Third, the allusion to the
freeing of a populus captivus is most plausibly connected with
Aquitainian prisoners from the war of äòæ^ð. It suggests a late date for
the baptism: Christmas äòð. Fourth, Gregory of Tours did not know
when precisely Clovis had fought against the Alamanni and killed their
king.
`L'histoire des lectures de Grëgoire de Tours reste encore a© ëcrire.' "æð
Meanwhile the tradition of defending him persists. This has something to
do with his style. He is long, selectively detailed, memorable, vivid, and,
above all, there. Like Tacitus and Ammianus, he is a historian who
impinges on his readers' imaginations and takes them over: one wants to
believe the man ^ it seems so much easier that way. But to do so would
often be a mistake. T|me and time again, both his chronology and his
facts have been seriously called into question.
Gregory is lively and gripping."æñ He writes a curious sort of Vulgar
Latin that lends him a certain folksy respectability or authenticity. This
tempts scholars to see him as someone who is part of an oral tradition ^
one that can conveniently be traced to important actors in events of the
beginning of the sixth century."ðò He writes `bad' or `naive' Latin.
Therefore there is no art here. `Therefore the man is telling the truth',
goes the faulty syllogism."ð"
Because he writes Vulgar Latin, classicists rarely study Gregory. This
is a pity. In the nineteenth century German medieval historians could
still recognize a glaring literary topos when they saw one and treat it
accordingly. Yet many scholars still persist in labelling obvious literary
inventions as òral folk tradition' or èye-witness accounts'."ðá According to
Grell, French scholars treat the sources for the French monarchy with
ùne curieuse absence de sense critique et une hypertrophie d'interprë-
tation'."ðâ She has put her ¢nger on something very important about the
way Gregory is handled. I would state my supposition even more provo-
"æð
Grell, `Clovis', p. "ææ.
"æñ
Erich Auerbach, Mimesis[: the Representation of Reality in Western Literature] (Princeton,
"ñæã), p. ðæ, draws our attention to horse-urine and on pp. ñã ^ä discusses the èveryday
reality' and `reawakening sensory apprehension of things and events' in Gregory's work. He
fails to discuss any of Gregory's sources or spools of material.
"ðò
For the trickledown of this idea see Auerbach, Mimesis pp. ðä and ñä.
"ð"
I was delighted to see that Grell (`Clovis,' p. "ðò) shares my views precisely: `les dëfauts de
Grëgoire deviennent ses qualitës . . . Les ërudits supposent qu'en ces temps frustes et sauvages,
les historiens ignoraient le mensonge et la dissimulation.'
"ðá
A textbook example is the treatment of Clotilde's sermon to Clovis in DLH á.áñ. Gibbon
saw the problem, see The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (New York, "ñâá), II.âðñ n. áä.
Yet Rouche, despite his better instincts, is still defending this preposterous literary pastiche,
which clearly has a written source, as oral tradition. See Rouche, Clovis, pp. áåò^ ".
"ðâ
Grell, `Clovis', p. "æñ.

catively: since Gregory is a `foundation text', he is treated s if he were

the Bible. One attempts to make sense of it. One explains away glaring
discrepancies. One assumes that it is not subject to the constraints of
transmission that other texts are, that is, that it does not have a textual
criticism. It has a higher status. It `trumps' other texts. One cannot add or
subtract from it ^ after all Gregory had said so himself. (DLH, "ò."ð) "ðã
The date of Clovis' major victory against the Alamanni and his baptism
is yet another case in point. Something had to `give', and it turned out to be
Gregory. This should be kept in mind, and we should be less willing to
perform historiographical contortions merely to justify Gregory ^ even if
he became `pe© re de l'Histoire de France.' "ðä Only Louis Halphen dared to
pose `cette question sacrile© ge,' `Grëgoire mërite-t-il vraiment crëance?,' and
reply in the negative."ðå The father of French history, whatever his inten-
tions, became for Halphen the father of lies, and he concluded that `Se
¢gurer qu'il est possible d'ëvoquer a© l'aide de Grëgoire de Tours la sociëtë
franque au temps de Clovis est une dangereuse illusion.'"ðæ Few will go that
far in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. But I suspect that Gregory
is probably more reliable when overheard than when listened to ^ when he is
inadvertently disclosing some signi¢cant realia than when he is preaching
on the Franco-Visigothic war."ðð The contemporary epistolographic
sources, Cassiodorus and Avitus, are more trustworthy, and should be
accorded pride of place. To turn from Clovis to Avitus: I hope to have
brought into relief the connections between various important issues in Ep.
ãå and the bishop of Vienne's known career and interests ^ notably the
ransoming of captives ^ and also to have made some conjectures, however
tentative, about the origins of Clovis' and Avitus' correspondence."ðñ
Department of Classics, Cornell University

"ðã
The parallel with Revelation XXII."ð ^"ñ is clear.
"ðä
Claude Fauchet, Oeuvres vol. ", f. "ãæv (Paris, "å"ò). Fauchet's endorsement was quali¢ed:
what he actually said was `Toutesfois tel qu'il est, il le faut appeller Pere de nostre histoire.' No
one however, cites Fauchet's complete sentence. Gregory became an authority. G. Monod,
Eè tudes critiques sur les sources de l'histoire mërovingienne (Paris, "ðæá), p. äð, points out that
Gregory was the ¢rst Latin historian of the Middle Ages to be printed in France (in "äáá).
"ðå
L. Halphen, `Grëgoire de Tours: historien de Clovis', in Mëlanges d'histoire du moyen age
o¡erts a© M. Ferdinand Lot (Paris "ñáä), pp. áâä^ ãã at p. áâä. Krusch is ridiculed by Kurth
(Eè tudes franques, II.áãò) for suggesting that Gregory invented the story of Clovis' baptism.
"ðæ
Halphen, `Gregoire de Tours', pp. áãâ ^ ã.
"ðð
Ibid., pp. áâð^ ãò points out Gregory's anti-Arianism.
"ðñ
Although this piece is an o¡shoot of a collaborative project with Ian Wood to translate and
annotate the Epistles of Avitus of Vienne, the opinions expressed represent my point of view
about the texts under discussion. On many of these matters Wood and I agree; on others ^ as
is the wont of philologists and historians ^ we do not. But I gratefully acknowledge my many
e-mail discussions with my collaborator, his exceptional expertise in this area, and his
kindness in allowing me to bounce ideas o¡ him. I would also like to thank Professor
Staubach and Professor Noble for their helpful criticism of a draft of this paper and Roger
Tomlin for his generosity in tracking down material in Valesius and in Fauchet for me.

Shanzer, Baptism of Clovis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shanzer, Baptism of Clovis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dating the baptism of Clovis: the bishop of

Vienne vs the bishop of Tours

This article re-examines the text and interpretation of three crucial

Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (") # Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð

virtually every sentence in it has already been turned upside-down

Avitus, Epistle ãå, page æä, lines á^ã

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (")

Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (") # Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð

unorthodoxy, such as haeresim, or else a more neutral word, quali¢ed

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (")

metaphor of velare and to justify the presence of acrimoniam which may

Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (") # Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð

Avitus' other letters must be introduced as a control group, to show

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (")

æ, or in the Contra Eutychen, where his correspondents are clearly of

Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (") # Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð

Avitus, Epistle ãå, page æå, lines "å^"æ

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (")

L and S o¡er di¡erent readings of the passage. L is a manuscript

Lyon, Bibliothe© que de la Ville, no. äâä

Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (") # Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (")

Burgundians were the Franks' tributaries. The expression would have

Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (") # Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð

Sirmond's editio princeps

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (")

The sequence of thought in the ¢rst two clauses is de¢nitely better, if

Avitus, Epistle ãå, page æå, lines â^ð

Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (") # Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð

your service, even though only now do you owe it to me through

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (")

state, such as captivitas, not to a punctual action, such as solutus."òá

Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (") # Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (")

own territory. When Klingshirn discussed Caesarius of Arles' ransoming

Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (") # Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð

Clovis and the ransoming of prisoners

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (")

Clovis gives assurance that episcopal apostolia will be honoured, but

Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (") # Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð

Avitus'. A bishop, well known to have been involved in freeing captives

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (")

Aquitaine in äòæ^ð. After ä"ò Avitus was negotiating the liberation of

Gregory of Tours and Clovis' battle against the Alamanni

Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (") # Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (")

Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (") # Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð

quinquennial dates in the DLH."äæ The Gregorian aliquando directly

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (")

death of the Alemannic king, as an identifying mark, so the onus

Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (") # Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð

territories to consult a Burgundian bishop? Or did Avitus spontaneously

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (")

Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (") # Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð

catively: since Gregory is a `foundation text', he is treated s if he were

Department of Classics, Cornell University

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd "ññð Early Medieval Europe "ññð æ (")

You might also like